- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Goldman Responds To Court Block Of Trump Tariffs: Nothingburger, White House Can Sidestep
Posted on 5/29/25 at 5:29 am
Posted on 5/29/25 at 5:29 am
Goldman: Tariffs Will Continue
quote:
Markets are all aflutter after a panel of activist Biden-appointed judges and a fossilized Reagan-era Karen at the International Trade Court - which nobody had ever heard of before tonight - threw a wrench in the wheels of Trump's trade policies, seemingly halting all of Trump's Liberation Day tariffs. The kneejerk reaction - that this is the end of Trump's reign of tariff terror - has promptly send the dollar sharply higher and spoos above 6,000 and just shy of a bull market.
There is just one problem: it's all just one big nothingburger as Goldman explains in a note published by the bank's chief political economist Alec Phillips late on Wednesday, "Court Blocks Majority of Tariff Hikes, But White House Could Reinstate Them Following Appeal or Through Other Tariff Authorities" (and available to professional subscribers) in which the bank explains that while the ruling is a "setback", Trump can not only win on appeal, but has multiple options to sidestep the ruling while waiting for the Supreme Court to rule and even to proceed should SCOTUS for some reason side with the trade court decision, to wit:
Bottom Line: The Court of International Trade blocked the tariffs the Trump administration imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The ruling blocks 6.7pp of tariff increase since the start of the year, including the tariffs on Canada, China, Mexico, and the 10% baseline tariff, but does not affect sectoral tariffs. As the administration can impose an across-the-board tariff and country-specific tariffs under other legal authorities (e.g., Sec. 122 and Sec. 301) this ruling represents a setback for the administration's tariff plans and increases uncertainty but might not change the final outcome for most major US trading partners.
This post was edited on 5/29/25 at 6:35 am
Posted on 5/29/25 at 5:42 am to TerraForma
I couldn't read the link because of the pay wall, but it wasn't off to a good start. None of the judges on the panel were appointed by Biden.


Posted on 5/29/25 at 5:47 am to TerraForma
The only way I can imagine this as a nothingburger is if the Trump Administration gets a stay of the Court's injunction while it appeals. That might be a temporary fix, but the Liberation Day tariffs are toast eventually...unless codified by Congress.
The 10% tariffs are so clearly "non-emergency" that I doubt a stay will be issued regarding them.
The 10% tariffs are so clearly "non-emergency" that I doubt a stay will be issued regarding them.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 5:51 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:Well, the article - which you can read now - spells out specifically the instruments the Admin can use to sidestep this silliness. I'd image Bessent has a Bat-phone connected to all the institutions and their executives on Wall Street, if he didn't already have this approach as a contingency in his quiver.
The only way I can imagine this as a nothingburger is if the Trump Administration gets a stay of the Court's injunction while it appeals. That might be a temporary fix, but the Liberation Day tariffs are toast eventually...unless codified by Congress.
The 10% tariffs are so clearly "non-emergency" that I doubt a stay will be issued regarding them.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 5:52 am to TerraForma
It will be easily overturned on appeal
Posted on 5/29/25 at 5:53 am to IvoryBillMatt
How many times do you plan on being wrong per day with your clearly “conservative” opinions? Lol you are VOR with a worse case of denial
Posted on 5/29/25 at 5:57 am to cadillacattack
quote:Indeed, but you never are absolutely certain with the 'fruit of a poisoned tree' federal judiciary we currently have. I'm relieved there are some levers that can be pulled in the interim or even longer term.
It will be easily overturned on appeal
Posted on 5/29/25 at 5:57 am to TerraForma
Thanks for posting this. This is way over my head...and apparently whoever advised President Trump to try to invoke IEEPA to justify these tariffs.
I have said all along that I trust President Trump about the wisdom of imposing these tariffs...it's just that they were pretty clearly not authorized under the IEEPA exception. If he can impose them otherwise, that's great.
I have said all along that I trust President Trump about the wisdom of imposing these tariffs...it's just that they were pretty clearly not authorized under the IEEPA exception. If he can impose them otherwise, that's great.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 5:59 am to Rip Torn
quote:
How many times do you plan on being wrong per day with your clearly “conservative” opinions? Lol you are VOR with a worse case of denial
How was I wrong? Wanting the Constitution and laws followed is an inherently conservative position. The President needs better lawyers.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 6:04 am to TerraForma
Here's something else...
While this Court is saying he doesn't have this tariff authority under IEEPA, you know what he DOES have?
Sanction authority.
Which is also 100% foreign policy and untouchable by the Courts under centuries of SCOTUS precedent.
While this Court is saying he doesn't have this tariff authority under IEEPA, you know what he DOES have?
Sanction authority.
Which is also 100% foreign policy and untouchable by the Courts under centuries of SCOTUS precedent.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 6:05 am to TerraForma
quote:
Well, the article - which you can read now - spells out specifically the instruments the Admin can use to sidestep this silliness.
I don't think the Court's ruling was silly at all. It will survive appeal all the way through the Supreme Court.
That's great that the tariffs can be imposed through the procedures outlined in the article. Too bad they weren't followed from the beginning.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 6:07 am to IvoryBillMatt
The President has the authority to impose tariffs. It isn’t difficult to understand nor is difficult to understand why the court tried to intervene
Posted on 5/29/25 at 6:07 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:I don't think the lawyering is the issue. It was possibly naive to not assume that Eisen & Co would attempt to lawfare nearly every legislative move the Admin makes. With a pliable federal judiciary, in hindsight that was a bad assumption but unforeseen. Now the Admin should know, so I'm hopeful every move they make has some contingencies, particularly w/r/t Executive Orders.
How was I wrong? Wanting the Constitution and laws followed is an inherently conservative position. The President needs better lawyers.
Posted on 5/29/25 at 6:12 am to TerraForma
quote:
With a pliable federal judiciary, in hindsight that was a bad assumption but unforeseen.
You think finding the 10% across the board tariffs unjustified under IEEPA was the result of a "pliable federal judiciary?"
Posted on 5/29/25 at 6:18 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:I'd not assume any particular attribution for their ruling against wisdom, against precedent, and in exception to established tariff laws.
You think finding the 10% across the board tariffs unjustified under IEEPA was the result of a "pliable federal judiciary?"
Posted on 5/29/25 at 6:18 am to IvoryBillMatt
Of course YOU don’t lol the Judiciary is infallible and Trump just needs better lawyers. It’s entertaining to watch you slowly morph into an odd variation of VOR and SFP all at once under the guise of “open mindedness”
Popular
Back to top
